What's the difference between art history and the study of
material culture? Some art historians specialize in the "study of
collecting;" interpreting the acquisition of art objects by looking
closely at the display of the object, transfers from one institution to the
next, sales records, and the object's social accessibility. (Yonan 236). It would appear that art historians study the
history of art objects, which wouldn't seem like a huge leap from material
culture. However, art historians are often left out of the conversation when
dealing with material culture. While reading Michael Yonan's, "Toward a
Fusion of Art History and Material Culture Studies", I realized that there
is a bigger gap than I had previously contemplated.
"Art history has the potential to be a discipline of objects, but its predilection for high art stands in the way." (Yonan 235)
Within art history the phrase "material culture"
is used often - it just has a different definition than the material culture
that historians are familiar with. Art historians refer to "minor
arts", or decorative arts as material culture, because it has a useful
purpose other than representation. Minor arts encompasses anything that isn't
easel paintings, sculpture, or other "high arts". Minor art can be
the objects studied by historians or anthropologists; for example, objects like
furniture, bowls, vases, clocks, etc. Yonan called for a consideration of
possibly re-categorizing art history so that it is not centered around image.
This would mean that art historians would have to stop only looking at art as
representations of something else, but instead consider art as an object
itself. He believes looking at art as objects rather than "visual
culture" would make art history's relevance to other studies clearer. My
only problem with this article is that Yonan never explained that relevance. What's
the point of pushing art historians to look at art as objects?
By considering the materiality of art, art historians would
be able to understand the culturally determined meanings of the art. Viewing
only what is represented by art makes the practice privileged in a way. By only understanding the image, an art
historian is leaving out half of the story. The materiality of the art is just
as important - who chopped down the wood that created the frame for the canvas
to be stretched over? Is this canvass associated with a particular workshop?
Where did the paint come from?
Deep down, art history has always been a study of objects.
Some objects bear images, but the materiality behind the image has always
mattered. Think of an original painting next to a digital presentation of the
same piece. Which is the authentic image? Most people would answer that the
original painting has the most authenticity because it was created first,
because it is right in front of you, and because it looks "so
different" in person. For example, the first time I saw the Mona Lisa in person I was
shocked.. I was used to seeing a digital presentation of the painting projected
onto an entire wall! But that's the beauty of the Mona Lisa - it's so tiny that
you have to lean in past groups of other tourists and look closely to see
the brush strokes, the colors you never noticed, and the frame that didn't seem
to matter until now. This type of ritual was addressed somewhat by Walter Benjamin's
article, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production."
Benjamin discusses the study of art and objects in a world
where art is rapidly being digitized and reproduced. Not only that, but many
art objects are now mass produced and reprinted (I keep thinking of the
watercolor prints at Target). The experience
of viewing the Mona Lisa is what I thought about when I was reading Benjamin's
interpretation of authenticity and authority. Maybe the importance of art is
not in the object or the image itself, but our reaction to it? Jennifer Roberts
alluded to the new digital frontier in art history by choosing to write about
the long-distance passage of the painting "Boy with a Squirrel",
rather than the image alone. Roberts states that we should study this because
our experience of time and space is approaching instantaneity. (Roberts 21). With the rapid increase in technology
and instant gratification, it is more important now than ever to study the journey that the painting endured while
being shipped to Europe. She considered the materiality of the painting by
explaining how the shipping process the painting went through was extremely
important in the creation of the painting as well as which materials were used
in that creation. It appears that the painting, just like any object, emerged
from a cultural moment which was representative of the larger society of which
it was created.
 |
| The Mona Lisa displayed at The Louvre in Paris, France Image Courtesy of {http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/oct/09/picasso.louvre.davinci} |
Comments
Post a Comment